Is it also a desperate hope to get somebody else to own up to something so they can then say; "och look loads of folk were at it, you're all very naughty boys aren't you?. Well we'll let you off this time but believe us when we say if we catch you doing it again there will be trouble"?

Seems likely to me that Rangers have used their usual defence policy of "but others were doing it too, we're not as bad as them!" without any basis.

Responsibilities of the Scottish Football Association – And Other Myths – Questions For Mr Regan

I wrote recently about Stewart Regan’s remarkable admission that the “fit and proper” person test as regards football officials was a “myth”. This was because checking the bona fides of new directors and officials would take a “cast of thousands”. Therefore the SFA relied upon the member clubs and the officials themselves to confirm whether or not they were “fit and proper”. This is taking self-regulation to the extreme.

It reminds me of the questions asked on immigration cards when visiting the USA which, from memory, include asking of you are coming to the USA to overthrow the government or engage in terrorist activities. I do not think many people say yes!

The latest news from the SFA, although not accompanied, as of last night, by a statement from Mr Regan on the SFA website, is that the SFA has written to member clubs asking them to state if they have made payments outwith contracts to players in the last 10 years.

This has provoked a range of responses. Some view this as proof that the whole of football in Scotland was rife with what Rangers have been accused of, and this is the SFA catching everyone in the net. Others have seen this as a prime example of “whataboutery” ie an effort to catch others in the same net as, allegedly, Rangers, even if the scale is very different.

It is viewed by some as the SFA doing its job, and by others as a further abdication of responsibility.

After all, if the policing of the “fit and proper” rue would require a “cast of thousands” then how many, on Mr Regan’s argument, would be needed to oversee and review the financial information which football clubs are required to submit to the football authorities? Do the SFA, SPL and SFL employ a phalanx of accountants and lawyers to pore over the accounts lodged by member clubs? Or do they receive them in the post, and drop them into a secure filing cabinet, never again to see the light of day?

Mr Regan commented that the SFA had to rely on a PLC like Rangers fulfilling its legal obligations, which are wider than simply football-related rules. However only a handful of SFA members are PLC’s. Most are private limited companies, whose rules are much less strict than those for PLC’s.

Mr Regan’s “myth” comment therefore appeared to confirm that SFA, and by extension SPL and SFL regulation is “more honoured in the breach than the observance”.

What it does show is, in my view, proof that the SFA’s “governance” of Scottish football has been a “myth” and for many years has worked on the basis that, to quote the great philosopher, Terry from Fawlty Towers, “What the eye doesn’t see, the chef gets away with”.

I thought a look at the SFA’s own rules might be of interest. All can be found online here as part of the SFA Handbook.

The Memorandum of Association of the SFA states, inter alia, the “objects for which the Association is established”.

Article 3 (2) states “…to take all such steps as may be deemed necessary or advisable for preventing infringements of the rules of the game, or other improper methods or practices in the game, and for protecting it from abuses.”

The Articles of Association, being the revised version adopted in 2011 have further details of note. The Articles to which I refer have however been of long standing, and are not last year’s innovations.

Article 3 states that “The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly it is itself obliged to:- (a) observe the principle of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the principles of fair play; (b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions … of FIFA, UEFA, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the Laws of the Game…”

Article 10 deals with the Official Return. Article 10.1 provides that by 1st June each year each member of the SFA must lodge this with the Secretary of the SFA. Any changes must be notified “without delay”.

Each member must “procure” that all relevant club officials confirm in writing to the SFA that they are “a fit and proper person to hold such position within Association Football.”

Article 10.2 contains the mythical “fit and proper” test. As I mentioned before, and inconveniently for Mr Regan, it states that “the Board (ie the SFA) must be satisfied that any such person is “fit and proper to hold such position within Association Football”.

This is a positive obligation on the SFA. It does not create the default position, which Mr Regan has admitted exists, that anyone who states they are “fit and proper” is so.

Article 12 relates to Financial Records. Article 12.2 states that “the Board may arrange for an inspection of, and may require the relevant club … to provide copies of all … books, records and details for any purpose, including, but not limited to Club Licensing.

Article 12.3 states “Furthermore, all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to the Scottish FA…”

Has the SFA, at any time since the EBT issues surrounding Rangers become public knowledge, approached Rangers to ask to see its books? Has it used its powers to conduct an inspection of the books?

On the basis that the EBT case is to determine if the HMRC view that the Trust payments to the players were “contractual” and therefore taxable, surely that raised a question in the SFA that Article 12.3 might have been breached?

If there were criminal proceedings ongoing then one could forgive the regulatory body taking a step back to so as not to prejudice such inquiries. However the Tax Tribunal is a civil matter, which was being heard, at the request of the appellants, in private. No question of “prejudice” would arise.

What, if anything, has the SFA done to investigate this matter?

As regards the SFA request to clubs to declare what they have been doing, this may be an effort to “trap” them into a mistake which puts errant clubs into the SFA’s clutches.

After all, the SPL took disciplinary action against Hearts in relation to repeated delayed payments to players, not because of the delays in paying them, but because the SPL considered Hearts had broken an agreement with the SPL.

The breaking of the “promise” to the SPL was viewed as an offence whilst repeated failures to pay staff on time was not?

Does Mr Regan hope (a) that a club will make a mistake in the declaration, and be dealt with as in breach of good faith with the SFA, or (b) that no payments are revealed, in which case he can say that the Board is “satisfied” that there is not a problem?

As the focus shifts of public debate shifts on to football governance, it would be helpful if Mr Regan, whether on Twitter or more formally, could answer the above questions.

A blog post in which I question what Mr Regan had to say about the appeal, and in which I wonder if he may have, through inadvertence, compromised the SFA’s role as an appellate body. Plus discussion regarding Boycott.

Things move fast with the Rangers story. Today Mr Regan issued a statement in relation to the disciplinary findings against Mr Whyte and Rangers. I have added some comments which are in bold.

——————————-

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive: “In light of last night’s outcome from the Judicial Panel Tribunal, it is important to clarify the process through which such cases are heard.

“The Judicial Panel Tribunal is an independent body made up of three members appointed from a list of more than 100.

“The implementation of the Judicial Panel process was approved unanimously by all member clubs at last year’s Annual General Meeting to bring efficiency, transparency and independence to the execution of football rules.

“The Scottish FA acted on the advice of our members to implement a robust disciplinary system that reflected the demands of the modern game.

“The sanctions imposed by the Judicial Panel Tribunal last night are subject to appeal. As the Scottish FA is the appellate body, it is inappropriate to discuss the findings of this particular Tribunal at this stage. “

All good stuff so far. One can’t fault any of it. And Mr Regan is quite right to say that, as the SFA is the appellate body, he can’t say any more about this case.

“I can fully understand the fear and frustration felt by all Rangers fans throughout the most difficult period in the club’s history.

Wait a minute – why is he talking about the fear and frustration felt by Rangers fans. Is he not heading toward talking about the tribunal? I am sure le will move on to something else.

“The Scottish FA has a responsibility to all its members and must implement its rules without fear or favour.

“It was entirely right that the original inquiry into Rangers FC and Craig Whyte was conducted independently and chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith. These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal, who returned their verdict last night.

That is ok. He is back on the rails. I thought he would say something that might compromise the appeal process, but I think he stopped in time. The last thing he needs is for the SFA to be accused by Rangers or Mr Whyte of having made up its mind prior to the appeal, or to have fettered its discretion.

We have noted the comments of Craig Whyte, which merely reaffirm his failure to accept any responsibility for the condition the club currently finds itself in. Suffice to say, he has been selective in his use of facts. We attended a meeting at the request of Ali Russell and provided no assurances to Mr Whyte in respect of his status as a director of the club.

“Indeed, we have documented evidence of our raising concern over Mr Whyte’s business practices to Collyer Bristow, from October last year until the week prior to the club entering administration. Since then, I have been involved in regular discussions with the club, the administrators, Duff and Phelps, and various interested parties, along with the Board, to provide guidance, support and information. Clearly, we are responsible for governing the game and have initiated, through an Independent Inquiry, parallel disciplinary proceedings.

Mr Regan, you said you would not talk about this Tribunal! Now you are regaling us with evidence in the case. What if Mr Whyte chooses, despite all appearances to the contrary, to appeal? Your comments suggest a certain closed mindedness as regards Mr Whyte. Even though he has clearly annoyed you, you should not make that clear!

In addition, if he had passed the matter to solicitors, then is it Mr Whyte’s fault if they delay in replying? Might that be a question for an appeal? Could you have been a bit unwise Mr Regan in mentioning this at all?

“It is important the Scottish FA, as the governing body, works in association with the Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League to reinvigorate the national sport.

“Rangers have been part of the fabric of Scottish football’s history and are integral to its future prosperity.

Mr Regan. Your Association is, I believe, the appellate body for this Tribunal. It is also the body which decides on membership of itself. If a newco arises from the ashes of Rangers, the SFA needs to decide if it should be admitted. Finally, if the SPL investigation into illegal payments and dual contracts ever finishes, as you have said, the SFA acts as an appellate body.

Standing that one of the penalties open to the SFA for punishment of Rangers is expulsion from Scottish football, is it wise to make comments about the team being integral to the future prosperity of Scottish football?

An impartial observer might view that as a determination by the Chief Executive of the SFA that Rangers’ importance to the future financial prosperity of Scottish football was more important than their expulsion, depending on the outcome of the remaining disciplinary matters.

I am sure you did not intend to fetter your discretion and that of the SFA in that way. Presumably you have been misquoted by the SFA website.

“The Scottish FA must act with integrity and with the best interests of the game at heart. It is with this in mind that we await any appeal from the club.”

Both the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol, the founding principles of which are below, and the Memorandum of Association make clear that, along with integrity and the interests of Scottish football, the SFA is obliged to follow and apply the rules, and to deal fairly with breaches thereof.

Perhaps it might have been wiser to stay quiet for a few days?

I suspect you might view this as unfair criticism, especially at the same time as you are being accused by Rangers fans of conspiring to destroy Rangers and all it stands for.

You might feel that you cannot win – you are accused of exhibiting bias towards Rangers and against it at the same time. The problem is that opinions in Scottish football are so polarised that “if you are not with us, you are against us”, seems to be the motto.

As a man with connections to Yorkshire cricket, you might find the situation here reminiscent of the various troubles Yorkshire CCC experienced in the 1970’s and 1980’s over the role of Geoffrey Boycott. There was no middle ground with Mr Boycott, and the same applies in Scotland when it comes to Rangers. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have always been a huge fan of Mr Boycott).

Finally, bearing in mind some of the threats being voiced by Rangers fans, I probably should not mention the word “boycott”!